Re: compatibility matrix for /usr/share/common-licenses

hi Francesco,

> I would say that the missing detail is that license compatibility is
> not a transitive relation!

indeed! I knew that but somehow it fell off my consciousness while looking at
that wikipedia diagram

> Well, before I start sending patches (for instance to reintroduce GPL-2
> in the Apache-2.0 row), some questions:
>
>  * are you going to completely ignore GPL-1 (assuming it's no longer so
>    widely adopted)? I am asking because I see that you included it in
>    the Artistic row, but not in other rows (such as GPL-3 or MPL-2.0
>    or ...)
>
>  * why did you drop LGPL-3 from the GPL-2 row? they are incompatible...
>
>  * why did you introduce LGPL-2+, LGPL-2.1, and LGPL-3 in the MPL-1.1
>    row? as far as I know, the LGPL licenses are (linking-)compatible
>    with MPL-1.1 ...

sorry, that's all sloppiness on my part, at the end of a long day. please send
me a patch, if you don't mind. as for GPL-1, either way is fine (it wasn't
included in adequate as of 8y ago, and I only see GPL-1+ references in my local
system, so it certainly seems reasonable to drop it)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEA2RWqo7IwLCLSFYbT59tVQ7WEioFAmaIVz4ACgkQT59tVQ7W
EiorARAA4H9rekEeoRdZH+NliYJX36jIQ7qyXnuIxHMQHy3k0tRPvNio6aovCkaZ
8MArd41yWWjdLb6rhp3oTta7FGOl8fGSSNLZ/AXf8s+w2aWFFuxHHC08tBWCVp0P
sVRNFUj6OTlRCIm9U8Ofd2yFjvbvJorq+SjI3XFrih5CVMyj1s5mn2JHk9PxzCkh
jzEuxweUCI8CUWIGELF6Hocz4IvvbaL2k0q4LW3HpBV8F9zon/5shWDOV7YZ9gkK
8+YgMLvTrgVoupuGQ7dyyTU+BRhdo+DegrjdJUOoi6F423TJH5pkh3DGv7tHCxW2
S/otGD6H2RpoE4ef0IrVBEiuBor87D/kYpb12bPUy9rGZoQfTVr89lPeU8r8q+PT
G6SLKT5gnvJH2t2Ct8/VEBKEEmE1yZKyw7xJEe7WPr6N0cjeRdORS+8bTheqd98o
LADE22qavyOJgC1AY9E2tz1LBfPBeddRKLiYLSOFzUDRU6rLI3zPwdWAGTFWb1Bj
r4kJnmN21CyqRJQtxkgBW7qBeHmz4KEtJB8/mTu4P9YtyNa4TPNqMFMk6XzQiLtZ
VQIT8CqlIfbOyygeWYZt+B8cyydTveQR9f+FimUoQjG0D8gYvFDTH+9Ntsj+nJL4
YHXyWPwR5bUX1lhXjEmgh9uuveBI/2y78ocNohef4xKvsXtcSl4=
=1PTV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----